Posi Test 2

Front 1

Amend 1

Back 1

Free exercise of religion, establishment of religion, free press, free speech, peaceful assembly, right to petition government.

Front 2

Amend 2

Back 2

Right to keep and bear arms

Front 3

Amend 3

Back 3

No quartering of soldiers without owner's consent

Front 4

Amend 4

Back 4

No unreasonable searches or seizure

Front 5

Amend 5

Back 5

Grand jury indictment, double jeapardy, prohibition, no self-incrimination, due process protection, no seizure of preoperty withou compensation.

Front 6

Amend 6

Back 6

Jury trial in criminal cases, right to speedy and public trial, notice of the natureof the accusation, right to confront witnesses against and call witnesses in favor, right to counsel.

Front 7

Amend 7

Back 7

Jury trial in civil cases

Front 8

Amend 8

Back 8

No excessive bail, no cruel and unusual punishment.

Front 9

Amend 9

Back 9

Rights not limited by the list of rights in the first eight amendments

Front 10

Amend 10

Back 10

Powers not delegated to the national govt. are reserved to the states and the people.

Front 11

Amend 13

Back 11

Civil war amendment that specifically prohibited slavery in the United States. (outlawed slavery)

Front 12

Amend 14

Back 12

Civil war amnd that provided all persons with the privileges and immunities of national citizenship; the guarantee of equal protection of the laws by any state; and the safeguard of due process to protect one's life, liberty, and property from state govt. interference.

Front 13

Amend 15

Back 13

Civil war amend that extended suffrage to former male slaves.
African Americans could vote.

Front 14

Civil liberties

Back 14

the personal freedoms of individuals that are protected from the govt intrusion

Front 15

Bill of rights

Back 15

The freedoms listed in the first ten amends to the U.S. constitution.

Front 16

Selective incorporation

Back 16

The process of applying some of the rights in the Bill of Rights to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amend.

Front 17

Free exercise clause

Back 17

The 1st amend provision intended to protect the practice of one's religion free from govt interference

Front 18

Establishment clause

Back 18

The 1st amend prohibition against the govt's establishment of a national religion

Front 19

Lemon test

Back 19

The 3-part test for establishment clause cases that a law must pass bfore it is declared constitutional: It must have a secular purpose; it must neither advance nor inhibit religion; and it must not cause excessive entanglement with religion.

Front 20

Clear and present danger test

Back 20

Free speech test that only prohibits speech that produces a clear and immediate danger.

Front 21

Bad tendency test

Back 21

Free speech test that prohibits speech that could produce a bad outcome, such as violence, no matter how unlikely the possibility the speech could be the cause of such an outcome

Front 22

Symbolic speech

Back 22

Actions meant to convey a political message

Front 23

Miller test

Back 23

The current judicial test for obscenity caces that considers community standards, whether the material is patently offensive, and whether the material taken as a whole lacks serious literacy, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Front 24

Slander

Back 24

Oral statements that are false and injure another's reputation

Front 25

Libel

Back 25

Written statements that are false and injure another's reputation

Front 26

Sullivan rule

Back 26

Standard requiring public officials and public figures in defamation suits to prove that allegedly libelous or slanderous statements are both false and made with malice

Front 27

Hate speech

Back 27

Prejudicial and hostile statements toward another person's innate characteristics such as race and ethnicity

Front 28

Prior restraint

Back 28

A practice that would allow the govt. to censor a publication before anyone could read or view it.

Front 29

Probable cause

Back 29

A practical and nontechnical calculation of probabilities that is the basis for securing search warrants

Front 30

Exclusionary rule

Back 30

The judicial barring of illegally seized evidence from a trial

Front 31

Miranda rights

Back 31

The warning police must administer to suspects so that the latter will be aware of their right not to incriminate themselves. The rights include the right to remain silent, the right to know statements will be used against them, and the right to have an attorney for the interrogation.

Front 32

Gregg v. georgia

Back 32

The supreme court decision that upheld the death penalty in the United States

Front 33

Roe v. wade

Back 33

The supreme court case that legalized abortions in the United States during the first two trimesters of pregnancy

Front 34

Test case

Back 34

Practice by which a group deliberately brings a case to court in order to secure a judicial ruling on a constitutional issue

Front 35

Amicus curiae brief

Back 35

Legal briefs filed by organized groups to influence the decision in a supreme court

Front 36

Civil rights

Back 36

Protection of historically disadvantaged groups from infringement of their equality rights by discriminatory action

Front 37

Jim crow laws

Back 37

legislation in the south that mandated racial segregation in public facilities such as restaurants and restrooms

Front 38

De jure segregation

Back 38

Segregation mandated by law or decreed by govt officials

Front 39

De facto segregation

Back 39

Segregation that occurs because of past economic and social conditions such as residential racial patterns

Front 40

Civil rights act of 1964

Back 40

Historic legislation that prohibited racial segregation in public accommodations and racial discrimination in employment, education, and voting

Front 41

Voting rights act of 1965

Back 41

Federal legislation that outlawed literacy tests and empowered federal officials to enter southern states to register african american voters; the act dismantled the most significant barriers to African Americans' suffrage rights

Front 42

Rational basis test

Back 42

Equal protection test used by the supreme court that requires a complainant to prove that the use of a classification such as age, gender, or race is not a reasonable means of achieving a ligitimate govt objective

Front 43

Intermediate scrutiny test

Back 43

Equal protection test used by the supreme court that requires the govt to prove that the use of classification such as age, gender, or race is substantially related to an important govt objective

Front 44

Strict scrutiny test

Back 44

Equal protection test used by the supreme court that places the greatest burden of proof on the govt to prove that classificatios such as age, gender, or race are the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling govt goal

Front 45

Affirmative action

Back 45

Programs that attempt to provide members of disadvantaged groups enhanced opportunities to secure jobs, promotions, and admission to educational institutions

Front 46

Ragents of the university of Cali v. Bakke

Back 46

Supreme court case that declared unconstitutional the use of racial quotas to achieve a diverse student body but allowed the use of race as one of many factors in admissions decisions

Front 47

Reverse discrimination

Back 47

Argument that the use of race as a factor in affirmative action programs consitutes unconstitutional discrimiantion against the majority population

Front 48

korematsu v. Untied states

Back 48

The 1944 supreme court decision that upheld the constitutionality of the U.S govt's internment of more than one hundred thousand American of Japanese descent during wwii

Front 49

Homophobia

Back 49

Irrational fear and hatred directed toward persons who are homosexuals

Front 50

Civil union

Back 50

Legal recognition by a state of a gay or lesbian relationship; allows gay and lesbian couples to receive the same state benefits as heterosexual married couples

Front 51

Equal rights amend

Back 51

The proposed consititutional amend that would have prohibited national and state govts from denying equal rights on the basis of sex

Front 52

Comparable worth

Back 52

The notion that individuals performing different jobs that require the same amount of knowledge, effort, skill, responsibility, and wrking conditions should receive equal conpensation; the proposal would elevate the pay structure of many jobs traditionally performed by women

Front 53

Sexual harassment

Back 53

The practice of awarding jobs or job benefits in exchange for sexual favors, or creation of hostile wrk or education environment by unwarranted sexual advances or sexual conversation

Front 54

Civil rights movement

Back 54

The litigation and mobilization activities of African Americans in the second half of the twentieth century that led to a greater realization of equality for all disadvantaged groups

Front 55

Griswold v. connecticut

Back 55

By a vote of 7-2 that ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".

Front 56

lawrence v. texas

Back 56

In the 6-3 ruling, the justices struck down the sodomy law in Texas. The court had previously addressed the same issue in 1986 in Bowers v. Hardwick, where it upheld a challenged Georgia statute, not finding a constitutional protection of sexual privacy.

Front 57

roth v. u.s.

Back 57

redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment

Front 58

Miller v. California

Back 58

case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes. The decision reiterated that obscenity was not protected by the First Amendment and established the Miller test for determining what constituted obscene material.

Front 59

Brandenberg v. ohio

Back 59

case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action. In particular, it overruled Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence.

Front 60

Texas v. johnson

Back 60

that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag in force in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Front 61

Buckley v. valeo

Back 61

upheld a federal law which set limits on campaign contributions, but ruled that spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected free speech, and struck down portions of the law. The court also stated candidates can give unlimited amounts of money to their own campaigns.

Front 62

Citizens united v. FEC

Back 62

corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. The 5-4 decision resulted from a dispute over whether the non-profit corporation Citizens United could air via video on demand a critical film about Hillary Clinton, and whether the group could advertise the film in broadcast ads featuring Clinton's image, in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as the McCain-Feingold Act.

Front 63

Engel v. vitale

Back 63

determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools.

Front 64

Lee v. weisman

Back 64

regarding school prayer. It was the first major school prayer case decided by the Rehnquist Court. It involved prayers led by religious authority figures at public school graduation ceremonies. The Court followed a broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause that had been standard for decades at the nation's highest court,

Front 65

Edwards v. aguillard

Back 65

regarding creationism. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools along with evolution was unconstitutional, because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion. At the same time, however, it held that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to school children might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction."

Front 66

Zelman v. simmons-harris

Back 66

tested the allowance of school vouchers in relation to the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Front 67

West virginia v. barnette

Back 67

held that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school.

Front 68

Winsconsin v. yoder

Back 68

Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade, as it violated their parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion.

Front 69

Employment division v. smith

Back 69

Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade, as it violated their parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion.

Front 70

NY times v. united states

Back 70

Times to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press under the First Amendment was subordinate to a claimed Executive need to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that First Amendment did protect the New York Times' right to print said materials.

Front 71

D.C. v. heller

Back 71

held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use in federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states.[1] It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self defense.

Front 72

Miranda v. arizona

Back 72

The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.

Front 73

Gideon v. wainwright

Back 73

the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys.

Front 74

Gregg v. georgia

Back 74

reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence. ( Eighth Amendment bar on "cruel and unusual punishments")

Front 75

Atkins v. virginia

Back 75

ruled 6-3 that executing the mentally retarded violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments.

Front 76

Roper v. simmons

Back 76

held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court's prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the age of 16.

Front 77

Kennedy v. louisiana

Back 77

held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause did not permit a state to punish the crime of rape of a child with the death penalty; more broadly, the power of the state to impose the death penalty against an individual for committing a crime that did not result in the death of the victim is now limited to crimes against the state

Front 78

Dred scott v. sandford

Back 78

ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not protected by the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States. It also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories.

Front 79

Plessy v. ferguson

Back 79

decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation even in public accommodations (particularly railroads), under the doctrine of "separate but equal".

Front 80

Sweatt v. painter

Back 80

The case involved a black man, Heman Marion Sweatt, who was refused admission to the School of Law of the University of Texas, whose president was Theophilus Painter, on the grounds that the Texas State Constitution prohibited integrated education. At the time, no law school in Texas would admit blacks.

the case successfully challenged the "separate but equal" doctrine of racial segregation established by the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson.

Front 81

Brown v. board of education

Back 81

declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students and denying black children equal educational opportunities unconstitutional.

Front 82

University of cali v. bakke

Back 82

permissible scope and purpose of affirmative action programs.

Front 83

Grutter v. bollinger

Back 83

upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. The 5-4 decision

Front 84

Craig v. boren

Back 84

determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications had to be subjected to an intermediate standard of judicial review

Front 85

U.S. v. virginia

Back 85

struck down the Virginia Military Institute's long-standing male-only admission policy in a 7-1 decision.

Front 86

Romer v. evans

Back 86

case dealing with civil rights and state laws. The Court gave its ruling on May 20, 1996 against an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action from recognizing homosexual citizens as a Protected class.